Yes.
So, we have a disagreement on the actual use of Ad Hominem...
Ad Hominem
- directed against a person rather than against his arguments
Now, being that I am attacking his Claim, and I pointing out that he is a bad actor, means that I am attacking first, his claim, then, his character.
Therefore it does not qualify as 'Ad Hominem'
My opinion on him personally, does not matter, after I have attacked his claim.
And yes, his 'background', very much matters as well. I am not in the habit of believing known liars.
It matters very much what the speed of light is. It matters very much if we are being Lied to. I choose not to chase down red herrings set up for the masses to chase, while being left in the pen like a sheep.
For now, I question "light" and "speed" itself. I recommend everyone do that.
Any mention of perceived "immoral" or "unreliable" "character" (and or "ulterior motives") is an ad hominem attack.
I never mentioned the individual you specified because I don't see them as (even slightly) relevant to the discussion at hand.
What is the "truth" about "light" and "speed"?
I have no idea where you're trying to go with this.
I disagree. As I said, I attacked his CLAIM.
Then I added in other factors, which you consider to be an 'insult'. So if you deem it ad hominem, that's your prerogative, yet it doesn't counter my attack on his claim.
Or, I will accept (even against its own definition) that it was 'Justified Ad Hominem'
My claims, and my attack, was truth, relevant to the claim that I countered.
In other words, I don't care if it is an insult. The Truth is what matters.
Character Attacks: How to Properly Apply the Ad Hominem
A new theory parses fair from unfair uses of personal criticism in rhetoric
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/character-attack/
You didn't even mention any specific "claim" by this individual.
You simply spouted off about "plagiarism" and a bunch of other "moral failings".
The funny thing about ad hominem attacks is they are a DOUBLE-EDGED-SWORD.
If you really want to avoid ad hominems, you must also avoid "positive" ad hominems (praising someone's personal integrity and or "character" in order to attempt to boost the "credibility" of their claims).
I'm kind of an ad hominem purist.
Please try to present a logical claim without even mentioning the "source" of that claim.
Your identity cannot validate or invalidate your logic.
Oops I thought I had my response to this on there but didn't.
I already provided my case to disprove this claim. So I guess we just don't agree.
Yeah, splitting hairs on ad hominems leaves the door wide open for "differences of opinion".
It doesn't matter if the accusation is "true" or not.
It doesn't matter if the "attack" could be intended as "something positive".
Any mention of someone's identity (character, personality, history) is a RED-HERRING.
Let's try to stick as closely to "the facts" as we can.
Click to watch 28 seconds,
Now you are being dishonest and misrepresenting my argument. If that is all you saw, then we are also at our limit here. As it would be illogical to continue.
But thanks for your time.
We can observe the speed of light.
This is empirically verifiable by radio triangulation.
This conversation has absolutely nothing to do with any specific individual.
YOU DIDN'T EVEN MENTION ANY SPECIFIC "CLAIM" BY THIS INDIVIDUAL.
Radio triangulation.
Radio triangulation.
Yes.
I covered this in the other one. Let's try to keep it on one. I know, I think I made more threads lol, but it is confusing and not efficient to bank down multiple comments :)